On
the validity of all religions
in the thought of ibn Al-'Arabi
and Emir 'Abd al-Qadir:
a letter to `Abd al-Matin

Thank you for
your question about the notion of the "universal validity" of all religions
and its relation to the Sufism of Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-`Arabi and Emir
`Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri. I do not have all the English books you mentioned
that ascribe this notion to them, but I believe that some kind of an answer
can be given on the basis of the books I have seen in English, and traditional
Islam as I have taken it from my shiekhs in fiqh and Sufism.

I will try
to touch on some general considerations about the universality of the
message of the prophets (on whom be peace), the finality of Islam, the
validity of non-Islamic religions, and the positions of Ibn al-`Arabi
and Emir `Abd al-Qadir versus that of some of their modern interpreters.
Some of the material included has been drawn from Tariqa Notes,
and some from a letter last year to Christians in the Ukraine.

1. The
Universality of Religions and Finality of Islam.

Allah sent mankind
and jinn His prophetic messengers (upon whom be peace), who were trustworthy,
intelligent, truthful, and fully conveyed their messages. He protected them
from sin, and from every physical trait unbecoming to them, though as human
beings, they ate, drank, slept, and married. They were the best of all created
beings; and the highest of them was him whom Allah chose to be the final
seal of prophethood, our prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him
peace).

Though the
Sacred Law of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) superseded
all previously valid religious laws, it was identical with them in beliefs,
such as tawhid or "oneness of God", and so on, a fact that the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) emphasized by saying, "Let
none of you say I am superior to [the prophet] Jonah," (Bukhari,
4.193: 3412), for the illumination of Jonah's tawhid (upon him
be peace)--under the darkness of the storm, the darkness of the sea, and
the darkness of the belly of the fish--was not less than the illumination
of the Prophet's tawhid at the zenith of his success as the spiritual
leader of all Arabia (Allah bless him and give him peace). The light of
their message was one, in which sense the Qur'an says, "We do not differentiate
between any of His messengers" (Qur'an 2:285), showing that previous
religions were the same in beliefs, and though differing in provisions
of works, and now abrogated by the final religion, were valid in their
own times.

As for today,
only Islam is valid or acceptable now that Allah has sent it to all men,
for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said,

"By
Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community,
any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in
what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell" (al-Baghawi:
Sharh al-sunna 1.104).

This hadith
was also reported by Muslim in his Sahih by `Abd al-Razzaq in his
Musannaf, and others. It is a rigorously authenticated (sahih)
evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran

"Whoever
seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him,
and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an
3:85)

and many other
verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable
religion is necessarily known as part of our religion, and to believe anything
other than this is unbelief (kufr) that places a person outside of
Islam, as Imam Nawawi notes:

"Someone
who does not believe that whoever follows another religion besides Islam
is an unbeliever (like Christians), or doubts that such a person is an
unbeliever, or considers their sect to be valid, is himself an unbeliever
(kafir) even if he manifests Islam and believes in it" (Rawda
al-talibin, 10.70).

This is not
only the position of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence represented by
Nawawi, but is also the recorded position of all three other Sunni schools:
Hanafi (Ibn 'Abidin: Radd al-muhtar 3.287), Maliki (al-Dardir: al-Sharh
al-saghir, 4.435), and Hanbali (al-Bahuti: Kashshaf al-qina',
6.170). Those who know fiqh literature will note that each of these
works is the foremost fatwa resource in its school. The scholars
of Sacred Law are unanimous about the abrogation of all other religions
by Islam because it is the position of Islam itself. It only remains for
the sincere Muslim to submit to, in which connection Ibn al-`Arabi has said:

"Beware
lest you ever say anything that does not conform to the pure Sacred Law.
Know that the highest stage of the perfected ones (rijal) is the
Sacred Law of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). And know
that the esoteric that contravenes the exoteric is a fraud" (al-Burhani:
al-Hall al-sadid, 32).

2. Ibn
al-`Arabi and Contemporary Non-Islamic Religions

As for the abrogation
of all religions by Islam, many of us know Muslims who believe the opposite
of orthodox Islam, perhaps due to a literary and intellectual environment
in which any and every notion about this world and the next can be expressed,
in which novelty is highly valued, and in which tradition has little authority.
Many have even sought backing for their emotive preference for the validity
of other religions from the books of famous Sufis who are far from such
a beliefs, such as Ibn al-`Arabi or `Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri. In a recent
work for example entitled "Imaginal Worlds: Ibn al-`Arabi and the Problem
of Religious Diversity", Professor William Chittick says:

"The
Shaykh [Muhyiddin Ibn al-`Arabi] sometimes criticizes specific distortions
or misunderstandings in the Qur'anic vein, but he does not draw the conclusion
that many Muslims have drawn--that the coming of Islam abrogated (naskh)
previous revealed religions. Rather, he says, Islam is like the sun and
other religions like the stars. Just as the stars remain when the sun
rises, so also the other religions remain valid when Islam appears. One
can add a point that perhaps Ibn al-`Arabi would also accept: What appears
as a sun from one point of view may be seen as a star from another point
of view. Concerning abrogation, the Shaykh writes,

"'All
the revealed religions (shara'i') are lights. Among these religions,
the revealed religion of Muhammad is like the light of the sun among
the lights of the stars. When the sun appears, the lights of the stars
are hidden, and their lights are included in the light of the sun. Their
being hidden is like the abrogation of the other revealed religions
that takes place through Muhammad's revealed religion. Nevertheless,
they do in fact exist, just as the existence of the light of the stars
is actualized. This explains why we have been required in our all-inclusive
religon to have faith in the truth of all messengers and all the revealed
religions. They are not rendered null (batil) by abrogation--that
is the opinion of the ignorant.'([al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,]
III 153.12[16])

"If the
Shaykh's pronouncements on other religions sometimes fail to recognize
their validity in his own time, one reason may be that, like most other
Muslims living in the western Islamic lands, he had little real contact
with the Christians or Jews in his environment, not to speak of followers
of religions farther afield. He had probably never met a saintly representative
of either of these traditions, and he almost certainly had never read
anything about these two religions except what was written in Islamic
sources. Hence there is no reason that he should have accepted the validity
of these religions except in principle. But this is an important qualification.
To maintain the particular excellence of the Qur'an and the superiority
of Muhammad over all other prophets is not to deny the universal validity
of revelation nor the necessity of revelations appearing in particularized
expressions" (Religious Diversity, 12526).

Chittick's claim
above that Ibn al-`Arabi "does not draw the conclusion that many Muslims
have drawn--that the coming of Islam abrogated (naskh) previously revealed
religions" is false, and could have been corrected by a fuller translation
of the passage he has quoted from the Futuhat:

"The
religious laws (shara'i') are all lights, and the law of Muhammad
(Allah bless him and give him peace) among these lights is as the sun's
light among the light of the stars: if the sun comes out, the lights of
the stars are no longer seen and their lights are absorbed into the light
of the sun: the disappearance of their lights resembles what, of the religious
laws, has been abrogated (nusikha) by his law (Allah bless him
and give him peace) despite their existence, just as the lights of the
stars still exist. This is why we are required by our universal law to
believe in all prophetic messengers (rusul) and to believe that
all their laws are truth, and did not turn into falsehood by being abrogated:
that is the imagination of the ignorant. So all paths return to look to
the Prophet's path (Allah bless him and give him peace): if the prophetic
messengers had been alive in his time, they would have followed him just
as their religious laws have followed his law.

"For
he was given Comprehensiveness of Word (Jawami' al-Kalim), and
given [the Qur'anic verse] 'Allah shall give you an invincible victory'
(Qur'an 48:3), 'the invincible' [al-'aziz, also meaning rare,
dear, precious, unattainable] being he who is sought but cannot be reached.
When the prophetic messengers sought to reach him, he proved impossible
for them to attain to--because of his [being favored above them by]
being sent to the entire world (bi'thatihi al-'amma), and Allah
giving him Comprehensiveness of Word (Jawami al-Kalim), and the
supreme rank of possessing the Praiseworthy Station (al-Maqam al-Mahmud)
in the next world, and Allah having made his Nation (Umma) 'the
best Nation ever brought forth for people' (Qur'an 3:110). The Nation
of every messenger is commensurate with the station of their prophet,
so realize this" (al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, III 153.1220).

The passage,
when read carefully, is merely an affirmation that Allah's messengers (upon
whom be peace) were true, and everything they brought was true, which is
believed by every Muslim. It further suggests that everything their laws
(shara'i' means nothing else) contained has not only been abrogated,
but is thereby implicitly contained in the new revelation, in which sense
"their religious laws have followed his law." A familiar example cited by
ulama is the law of talion, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth",
which was obligatory in the religious law of Moses (upon whom be peace),
subsequently forbidden by the religious law of Jesus (upon whom be peace)
in which "turning the other cheek" was obligatory; and finally both were
superseded by the law of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace),
which permits victims to take retaliation (qisas) for purely intentional
physical injuries, but in which it is religiously superior not to retaliate
but forgive. This is the absorption of the stars' lights into that of the
sun, of "what, of the religious laws, has been abrogated by his law (Allah
bless him and give him peace) despite their existence, just as the lights
of the stars still exist." This is the sense in which Ibn al-`Arabi is interpreting
Comprehensiveness of Word (Jawami' al-Kalim) here.

What the
passage does not say is that non-Islamic religions are valid now that
the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has been sent with Islam.
Professor Chittick's omission of the second half of the passage (which
is plainly punctuated in finish by the words "so know this") is puzzling,
for it is highly material to the topic, and in spirit and in letter ("because
of his being sent to the entire world (bi'thatihi al-'amma)") plainly
contradicts the professor's suggestion that Ibn al-`Arabi does not believe
that the coming of Islam abrogated (naskh) previously revealed
religions. The wrongness of this notion is clear to anyone who reads the
second half and knows what the expression bi'thatihi al-'amma means
from having read it in similar contexts from other works of the traditional
Islamic sciences that formed Ibn al-`Arabi's education.

In fact,
one looks in vain in the works of Ibn al-`Arabi for the belief of the
validity of currently existing non-Islamic religions, for this is kufr,
as Imam Nawawi and the other Imams mentioned above unanimously concur.
Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that

"it
is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains
only to pre-Qur'anic times, but others disagree; there is no 'orthodox'
interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity,
124).

Orthodoxy
exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and
we have conveyed in Nawawi's words above that to believe anything else
is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something
that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to
the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the
French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof
Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did,
and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?

3. Emir
`Abd al-Qadir and Christianity

My point is
that it would have been one thing to say it under their own auspices, but
to project their views onto great Muslims of the past is a mistake that
should be corrected. Another example is found in Islam and the Destiny
of Man, in which Charles le Gai Eaton (omissions are his) says:

"According
to the great mujahid (the 'warrior in the path of Allah'), the
Emir `Abdu'l-Qadir, our God and the God of all the communities opposed
to ours are in truth One God . . . despite the variety of His manifestations
. . . He has manifested Himself to Muhammad's people beyond every form
while manifesting Himself in every form . . . To Christians He has manifested
Himself in the form of Christ . . . and to the worshippers of whatever
form it may be . . . in the very form of this thing; for no worshipper
of a finite object worships it for its own sake. What he worships is the
epiphany in the form of the attributes of the true God . . . Yet that
which all the worshippers worship is one and the same. Their error consists
only in the act of determining it in a limitative manner. [Quoted
from Mawqif 236 in the Mawaqif of `Abdul-Qadir (French translation
by M. Chodkiewicz published by Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1982).] `Abdul-Qadir
fought the Christians who invaded his land, Algeria, because he was a
Muslim. Exiled in Damascus, he protected the Christians against massacre
by taking them into his own home because he understood. Those who would
challenge him or accuse him of heresy should be prepared to face his sword
and accept death from its blade since small men risk their necks when
they challenge great ones"(Islam and the Destiny of Man, 53).

The passage
quoted from the Mawaqif is interesting, not only because scissors
seem to have been harder at work on it than sword, but because the reference
suggests it has been translated from Arabic to French to English, something
of a journey from the original words of the author. I don't know who arranged
the French original, but the above passage has not been quoted from Mawqif
236 of the Arabic Mawaqif that I have, which was printed in 1329/1911
in Damascus from the copy of Sheikh `Abd al-Razzaq al-Bitar, a manuscript
read by `Abd al-Qadir himself, with emendations in his own handwriting in
the margins.

The idea,
however, is familiar, and is mentioned in a number of places in the Mawaqif,
and is also mentioned in the Chapter of Hajj toward the end of the first
volume of the Futuhat of Ibn al-`Arabi, whom `Abd al-Qadir follows
closely. Ibn al-`Arabi feels that while God consigns idolaters to hell
eternally (if a prophetic warner has been sent to them, for otherwise
they are not responsible to do or refrain from anything), their worship
is not completely amiss, in that everyone, whether Christian, Jew, fire-worshipper,
or idolator, consider what they worship to be the Divine (Ar. al-Ilah,
"the Deity"), and do not worship what they worship except for this reason,
in which sense "your Lord has ruled that you shall worship none
except Him" (Qur'an 17:23), in which "ruled", according to `Abd
al-Qadir, means "brought about"; namely, that Allah, in virtue of this
motive and this name (al-Ilah) and His jealousy for its prerogative,
often answers the supplications of such worshippers and fulfills their
needs; though as said before, their worship is not valid, for "Allah
does not forgive that any should be associated with Him, but forgives
what is other than that to whomever He wills" (Qur'an 4:48): From
one side they do worship the God, but from another they have associated
with Him the specific objects that they believe He inheres in, so their
worship is invalid, because it does not conform to the absolute tawhid
brought by the prophets, upon whom be peace, who taught that Allah is
absolute in manifestation, not bound by any created form.

No matter
what the religion, then, for Emir `Abd al-Qadir, Allah cannot not be "worshipped"
in the limitary sense of the basic impetus of the worshipper towards the
Divine. But this does not mean it is acceptable or valid in Allah's eyes.
Whoever confuses these two things, as the above passage does, has done
violence to `Abd al-Qadir. He says:

"Since
the manifestings of Him Meant by Worship are manifold, so are sects and
creeds. For the aim of worship is to exalt with reverence, and the lowliness
and humility of every worshipper is only rendered to someone able to harm
or benefit, give or withhold, to give sustenance, to lower or raiseand
these attributes are not in fact, those of anyone except one alone, who
is Allah Most High, and He is absolutely beyond perception (ghayb mutlaq).

"So
every worshipper of a form, be it sun, star, fire, light, darkness,
nature, idol, phantasm, jinn, or other, maintains that the form he worships
is of Him Meant by Worship, and he ascribes the attributes of the Diety
(al-Ilah) to it, of harm, benefit, and so on. Such a person would
be right, in a way, if only he had not made Him finite and conditional.
For no worshipper intends by adoring the form he worships anything except
the Reality Deserving Worship, which is Allah Most High, and this is
what Allah has ruled (Qur'an 17:23) and brought about. But they
have proved ignorant of this Reality's absolute manifestation, unsullied
by conditionality or limitariness, and have proved ignorant of the Reality
in point of fact, though they do know it in general terms, this being
innately possessed knowledge" (al-Mawaqif, 1.33:8).

What is the
consequence of their proving "ignorant of the Reality in point of fact?"
Does it mean that every worshipper, whether he associates others with Allah
or not, is acceptable to Allah? `Abd al-Qadir answers this question in another
section of the Mawaqif in his exegesis of the words of the Meccan
idolators quoted by Allah in surat al-An`am, "Had Allah not wanted,
we would not have associated anything with Him, nor our fathers, nor would
we have prohibited anything" (Qur'an 6:148):

"This
is truth intended as falsehood, that is: 'If Allah had willed us not
to associate others with Him, we wouldn't have associated them with Him;
and if Allah had not willed that we prohibited anything, we wouldn't have
done so, for nothing we do occurs except what He wills.' And it is
true; but the way this truth is intended as a falsehood is that they claim
that everything Allah has willed for His servants is acceptable and liked
by Him.

"And
this is a falsehood, for Allah Most High wills for His servants whatever
He knows from them pre-eternally. And that which He knows from them
pre-eternally is whatever is entailed by what they most truly are, which
they seek through their primal disposition, be it good or evil, pure
monotheism (tawhid) or unbelief (kufr). For His will is
subject to His knowledge, and His knowledge is subject to what He knows,
and what He knows includes both the guided person and the lost, the
affirmer of pure monotheism (muwahhid) and the associater of
others with Him (mushrik), the damned and the saved, the truthful
and the liar. The beings that He Most High has created are the sites
of manifestation (madhahir) of His names, and there are those
of His names which entail beauty and mercy, this being the share of
those who are saved, the 'People of the Right Handful'; and there
are others of them that entail rigor and subjugation, this being the
share of those who are damned, the 'People of the Left Handful.'

"So
Allah's willing something is not the sign of His love for it and acceptance
of it, for 'He does not accept unbelief for His servants'
(Qur'an 39:7), though He has willed the unbelief of many of them.
His will is only a sign of His beginningless eternal knowledge of that
which He would will for endless eternity. If everything He willed for
His servants were goodness, it would entail that His sending the prophetic
messengers and appointing their laws was futile. For they came with
commands and prohibitions, and explained the Right Handful and the Left
Handful, as He says: 'Of them [humanity], there are the damned and
the saved'" (Qur'an 11:105) (al-Mawaqif, 1.46970: 236).

So at the
level of creation and destiny, everything is the will of God, and in a
sense, all religions, according to `Abd al-Qadir's viewpoint, are "worship"
of the Deity. But at the level of validity and salvation, only the worship
that conforms to what the prophets (upon whom be peace) have brought is
acceptable to Allah.

4. Divine
Will Versus Divine Acceptance

In the first
passage I have translated above from the Mawaqif, `Abd al-Qadir explains
that the mushrik who associates others with Allah is in a sense "worshipping"
God by the fact that he ascribes attributes of the Deity to the object of
his worship, which he only worships for their sake, though he has proved
"ignorant of the Reality [Deserving Worship] in point of fact" (al-Mawaqif,
1.33: 8). And in the second passage quoted, `Abd al-Qadir contrasts the
will of God in creating the mushrik and his "worship", from the acceptance
of Allah, which applies to neither, for he mentions "both the guided person
and the lost, the affirmer of pure monotheism (muwahhid) and the
associater of others with Him (mushrik), the damned and the saved,
the truthful and the liar" (al-Mawaqif, 1.469: 236). There is little
doubt here as to who is who: the muwahhid is saved, the mushrik
is lost. Whatever exception may be taken at the above use of "worship",
one thing that it certainly does not entail is the validity and acceptance
of God for all forms of this worship. In the whole discussion, Emir `Abd
al-Qadir closely follows Ibn al-`Arabi, who says,

"Allah
says, 'Your Lord has ruled that you shall worship none except Him'
(Qur'an 17:23), that is, has determined, and for His sake have the gods
been worshipped, for no one is intended by the worship of any worshipper
except God, since nothing is worshipped for its own sake but Allah. The
associator of others with Allah (mushrik) but makes the mistake
of setting up for himself a worship in a particular way not given to him
by God, and so is damned for that (fa shaqiya li dhalik). For they
say of those they associate with Him, 'We but worship them that they
may bring us closer to Allah' (Qur'an 39:3), thus acknowledging
Him" (al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, I 405.3133)

It is difficult
to agree completely with Ibn al-`Arabi and `Abd al-Qadir's interpretation
of "Your Lord has ruled" (qada Rabbuka) as meaning "Your
Lord has determined" (hakama, i.e. brought about), as
opposed to meaning "amara" or "commanded", the interpretation of
other exegetes, for the latter is attested to by the remainder of the verse:

"[Your
Lord has ruled that you shall worship none except Him,] and show goodness
to parents" (Qur'an 7:23),

where if "ruled"
(qada) meant "determined" (hakama), it would
entail that every behavior in the created world towards parents may be termed
"goodness", which is not the case.

Ibn al-`Arabi
ascribes his interpretation to "kashf" or "spiritual intuition"
(al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, III 117.8) rather than linguistic or other
conventional exegetical evidence--a private understanding that few ordinary
readers can follow him in--but in any case his explicit words "and so
is damned for that (fa shaqiya li dhalik)" leave little doubt about
the acceptability of such worship in his eyes. If there were doubt, the
same thought can be found many other passages of the Futuhat such
as his description of the four groups who shall never leave the hellfire,
the second of whom is those who associate others with Allah (al-mushrikun),
a mushrik being someone who "affirms the existence of Allah,
being unable to deny it, but Satan makes him associate others besides
Allah in His divinity" (ibid., I 302.9), a sin which he notes in another
section is "among those enormities that are never forgiven" (ibid.,
749.16).

The upshot
of these texts is that Ibn al-`Arabi, like `Abd al-Qadir (and virtually
every other Muslim), clearly distinguishes between the divine will, which
pertains to every created thing, and the divine acceptance, which only
pertains to things the Sacred Law deems good. This brings us back to our
starting point, the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran that

"whoever
seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him,
and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an
3:85).

5. The
Fate of Non-Muslims in the Afterlife

The reason that
contemporary writers affected by the writings of Gunon and Schuon, such
as Chittick and Gai Eaton (or such as Martin Lings, Titus Burckhardt etc.),
seem to want the universal validity of all religions at any price, even
to the extent of attributing it to masters like Muhyiddin ibn al-`Arabi
("in principle") or Emir `Abd al-Qadir ("he protected the Christians
against massacre by taking them into his own home because he understood"
[as if other scholars considered massacring them halal]) would seem to be
the emotive impalatability of followers of other religions going to hell.
Where is the mercy? Would Allah put someone in the hellfire merely for worshipping
in another religion besides Islam? This question is answered by traditional
Islam according to two possibilities:

(1)
There are some peoples who have not been reached by the message of the
Prophet of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace) that we must worship
the One God alone, associating nothing else with Him. Such people are
innocent, and will not be punished no matter what they do. Allah says
in surat al-Isra',

"We
do not punish until We send a Messenger" (Qur'an 17:15).

These include,
for example, Christians and others who lived in the period after the spread
of the myth of Jesus godhood, until the time of the prophet Muhammad (Allah
bless him and give him peace), who renewed the call to pure monotheism.

The great
Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali, includes in this category those who have
only been reached with a distorted picture of the Messenger of Islam (Allah
bless him and give him peace), presumably including many people in the
West today who know nothing about Allah's religion but newspaper stories
about Ayatollahs and mad Muslim bombers. Is it within such people's capacity
to believe? In Ghazali's view, such people are excused until after they
have had an opportunity to learn the undistorted truth about Islam (Ghazali:
"Faysal al-tafriqa," Majmu'a rasa'il al-Imam al-Ghazali,
3.96). This of course does not alter our own obligation as Muslims to
reach them with the da'wa.

(2)
A second group of people consists of those who turn away from God's divine
message of Islam, rejecting the command to make their worship God's alone;
whether because of blindly imitating the religion of their ancestors,
or for some other reason. These are people to whom God has sent a prophetic
messenger and reached with His message, and to whom He has given hearing
and an intellect with which to grasp it but after all this, persist in
associating others with Allah, either by actually worshipping another,
or by rejecting the laws brought by His messenger (Allah bless him and
give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative
to be worshipped as He directs. Such people have violated God's rights,
and have accepted to go to hell, which is precisely what His messengers
have warned them of, so they have no excuse:

"Truly,
Allah does not forgive that any be associated with Him; but He forgives
what is less than that to whomever He wills" (Qur'an 4:48).

In either
case, Allah's mercy exists, though for non-Muslims unreached by the message,
it is a question of divine amnesty for their ignorance, not a confirmation
of their religions validity. It is worth knowing the difference between
these two things, for one's eternal fate depends on it.

6. The
Absolute and Relative

A final question
arises here; namely, that since Allah alone is absolute, and all forms (presumably
including religious ones) are relative, why could He not transcend the forms
given in the Islamic Revelation; that is, if He can do anything, why should
it be impossible for Him to simply "forgive everyone"?

The answer
involves the concept of al-wajib al-'aradi or "the contingently
necessary," which is part of traditional Islamic aqida (tenets
of faith), and hence well known to scholars like Ibn al-`Arabi and Abd
al-Qadir, but perhaps not familiar to many contemporary Muslims. It is
arguably among the most important points one can learn from classical
works of aqida.

The possible
or impossible for Allah Most High involves the divine attribute of qudra
or omnipotence, "what He can do". This attribute in turn relates exclusively
to the intrinsically possible, not to what is intrinsically impossible,
as Allah says, "Verily Allah has power over every thing" (Qur'an
20:29), "thing" being something that in principle can exist. For example,
if one asks "Can Allah create square circle?" the answer is that His omnipotence
does not relate to it, for a square circle does not refer to anything
that in principle could exist: the speaker does not have a distinct idea
of what he means, but is merely using a jumble of words.

Similarly,
if one were to ask, "Can Allah terminate His own existence?" the answer
is that the divine omnipotence does not relate to this; it is intrinsically
impossible (mustahil dhati), for the divine nature necessarily
entails the divine perfections, of which Being is one. It is impossible
that Allah could cease to have this perfection or any other, for otherwise
He would not be God.

There are
thus things that are necessarily true of God (that He cannot not be);
and their opposites, things which are necessarily impossible of God. In
terms of the question above, the choice to forgive everyone, that is,
to simply suspend the implications of the Qur'anic verses and hadiths that
indicate that some classes of people will never leave hell, is not intrinsically
impossible (mustahil dhati) for Allah, in that it does not involve
something inherently impossible as does the square circle, or negate something
inherently true by the very nature of the Divine. Then why didn't any
scholar ever think of it? Because for Islamic orthodoxy, there is another
class of both the necessary and the impossible that the divine attribute
of omnipotence (qudra) has no relation to; namely, that which is
necessary or impossible because, although not so a priori, it has
become necessary or impossible by being connected with the knowledge ('ilm)
of Allah and His beginninglessly eternal attribute of speech, in His informing
us of it.

For example,
Abu Lahab was born with apparently the same chance as anyone to hear the
Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace), enter Islam, and
reach paradise. But when he persecuted the Muslims, and surat al-Masad
(Qur'an 111) was subsequently revealed, and Allah manifested His beginninglessly
eternal knowledge that Abu Lahab was of the people of hell. Although initially
this outcome was merely contingent and possible, when the eternal Word
of Allah connected with it, it became necessary, final, and inabrogable,
for Allah only informs of what is in His knowledge, and His knowledge
only conforms to what truly is, which is why no one alters the words of
Allah (Qur'an 6:34), for otherwise His words would express ignorance, an
attribute impossible for God, or lies, which equally contradict the nature
of the Divine.

Abu Lahab
is thus necessarily of the people of hell, necessary not logically or
inherently, but contingently necessary, because of the contingent event
of Allah having informed us of it. Everything that Allah has informed
us of is of this class of thing, and divine omnipotence (qudra)
does not relate to their contrary, for His Word shall be realized exactly
as He has said, and it is impossible that any of it be nullified.

This is why
for Sufis like Ibn al-`Arabi and Emir `Abd al-Qadir, the revealed law
in a sense partakes of the Divine, for it returns to Allah's attribute
of speech, in the Qur'an, and to the unrecited revelation of the sunna
of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) which is Allah's act
of inspiration-both of which are inseparable in principle from Allah's
entity. For such Sufis, the sharia is the haqiqa, and this is,
after all, the position of Islam itself. To answer our question above,
the first premise that Allah alone is absolute, and all forms are relative,
is plainly wrong, and contradicted by the manifold existence of Allah's
determinations, which, though contingently necessary (wajib aradi)
rather than inherently so, are no less absolute than the Divine itself.